Fitzgerald v. Chubb & Son Inc
Filing
65
ORDER granting 53 Motion for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 6/17/11. (Esposito, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
:
:
:
:
v.
: CIV. NO. 3:10CV848 (WWE)
:
CHUBB & SON INC.
:
:
:
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
CHERYL FITZGERALD
Plaintiff Cheryl Fitzgerald seeks reconsideration of the May
5, 2011 ruling [Doc. #51] on her Motion to Compel, which sought
additional documents from the personnel files of 22 employees who
were assessed as part of the RIF process and to refute
defendant’s justification for the decision to terminate
plaintiff’s employment. [Doc. #53].
1.
Settlement Authority
Plaintiff requests that the Court expand the ruling to
require defendant to disclose the settlement authority documents
of the comparators from their personnel files. Plaintiff reasons
that if “her settlement authority is higher than many of her
peers. . . plaintiff could rely on this information to discredit
defendant’s claims that plaintiff handled lower level files as
compared to her peers and that plaintiff was given low scores on
her assessment because of her inability to handle higher level
cases as compared to her peers.” [Doc. #54 at 2].
Defendant contends that plaintiff’s premise is flawed. The
“RIF assessments were based on the employee’s observed ability to
effectively demonstrate the following five (5) competencies:
coverage; investigation; negotiation and settlement; case
management; and communication and service.” [Doc. #61 at 4].
Defendant argues, among other things,
that “[s]ettlement
authority is not necessarily indicative of what types of files
were handled by claim examiners, never mind how well files were
handled.” [Doc. #61 at 4].
In addition, defendant argues it
would be unduly burdensome to assign a Chubb employee to examine
22 personnel files for a “very limited benefit.”
Id.
It is not clear from defendant’s response whether the
personnel files contain the settlement authority information for
the 2006 and 2007 years. Moreover, the Court agrees with
defendant that the request, if granted, would be appropriately
limited to the employees assessed for the RIF by Ms. Connors.
Accordingly, defendant will report to the Court on the number of
employees assessed for the RIF by Ms. Connors and take a random
sampling of three (3) personnel files to determine whether the
files contain the settlement authority for the 2006 and 2007
years. Defendant will report to the Court by letter within
fourteen days.
Defendant may request more time on a showing that
the search will require more time.
2
2.
Background and Experience Information
Plaintiff seeks documents contained in the personnel files
of the 22 identified employees that reflect information regarding
the background and experience of the employees.
Plaintiff adds
that there are at least three employees who were assessed as part
of the RIF (Melinda Alden, Bryan Short, Jeanette Lawson), who
began working for defendant in 2008, so there are not 2006 or
2007 evaluations for these employees.1
Plaintiff states that
these three employees scored higher on the assessment than
plaintiff.
Defendant states that these three individuals were
not assessed for the RIF by Ms. Connors, so their qualifications
are “wholly irrelevant” to showing that Ms. Connors discriminated
against plaintiff.
Defendant objects to the broad request for background and
experience information for the 22 employees, arguing that there
is no evidence that managers referred to resumes or applications
when they assessed claim examiners against the five competencies
evaluated in the RIF.
The Court find that plaintiff has not made a showing for
this information on reconsideration and denies plaintiff’s
request without prejudice to renewal if, after deposing the
managers, new information supports plaintiff’s contention that
1
Melinda Alden had been employed for one month when her RIF
assessment was prepared. Bryan Short and Jeanette Lawson began
working for defendant in the summer of 2008.
3
this information was used in the RIF assessments.
3.
2008 Evaluation
Plaintiff seeks 2008 job evaluations for the 22 assessed,
arguing that the 2008 evaluation will reflect how management
viewed the individuals assessed as of December 2008.
Neither
party stated when the 2008 job evaluations were completed.
However, there is no dispute that 2008 job evaluations were not
used “in any way” to compute the RIF assessment score.
Defendant
added that the “evaluations were largely self-assessments by the
employee, including lists of goals, along with mid-year and yearend comments from the employee’s manager.” [Doc. #61 at 7].
The Court finds that plaintiff has not made a showing for
this information on reconsideration and denies plaintiff’s
request without prejudice to renewal if, after deposing the
managers, new information supports plaintiff’s contention that
this information was used in the RIF assessments.
4.
Written Warnings or Disciplinary Memoranda
Finally, plaintiff requests that the court order the
disclosure of any warnings or disciplinary memoranda from the
comparators’ personnel files.
grounds.
Defendant objects on several
First, plaintiff does not claim that she was
disciplined unfairly, or at all. Second, plaintiff does not make
any specific claim that anyone else in the RIF pool was
disciplined. Finally, defendant points out that plaintiff has the
4
2006 and 2007 evaluations and the RIF assessments for the RIF
pool and any disciplinary actions relating to the employee’s
ability to perform their job would be expected to be reflected in
these documents.
The Court finds that plaintiff has not made a showing for
this information and denies plaintiff’s request without prejudice
to renewal, if after deposing the managers, new information
supports plaintiff’s contention that this information was used in
the RIF assessments.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. #53] is GRANTED. Upon reconsideration, the
Court adheres to the original ruling and order, subject to
defendant’s providing the Court with the information requested.
Defendant will provide the information by letter to the
Court within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this order. D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(d).
This is not a recommended ruling.
This is a discovery
ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly
erroneous" statutory standard of review.
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of
the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges.
As such, it
is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the
5
district judge upon motion timely made.
Entered at Bridgeport this 17th day of June 2011.
__/s/________________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?